This week, the US government paid a wind farm company $1.2 billion to stop building wind farms. It also made solar inverters illegal last week.
That’s overstating it. A couple clarifications.
It banned foreign (edit) made equipment because it’s known for cybersecurity issues. It was the FCC that restricted new foreign-made connected inverters over grid cybersecurity concerns. [1]
1. https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adds-foreign-produced-power...
> This week, the US government paid a wind farm company $1.2 billion to stop building wind farms.
The $1.2B is real, but it wasn’t payment to stop construction. RWE agreed to surrender three offshore wind leases and settle related claims. Anyways, RWE’s three leases were in very early development and weren’t expected online until the 2030s. [2]
You can still think both policies are bad. But those are different claims.
2. https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/rwe-says-reached-12...
1. https://www.energy.gov/cmei/systems/solar-photovoltaics-supp...
If one is trying to attack the threat you claim, one might ban all internet capable inverters.
To ban all, even fully offline ones, means the threat you describe is an excuse.
The ban covers any inverter with any wireless communication whatsoever. Bluetooth is specifically called out, despite necessarily being local-only and not enabling an internet connection.
I suppose you could make the argument that with Bluetooth, the app that communicates with it has internet access and thus it's the same thing. However:
The ban does not cover a power inverter with no integrated comms, but has a serial port into which is plugged a "sold separately" wifi dongle. Neither does the ban cover an inverter with an ethernet port. It covers solely wireless communication.
I think home devices that phone somebody-elses-home are a cancer anyway.
[1] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-423682A1.pdf
They’re network-connected and remotely controllable. The concern is compromise of the vendor/cloud infrastructure allowing large numbers of inverters to be manipulated simultaneously.
Or even Trojan horse style malware is a possibility I suppose (Stuxnet).
That’s basically the threat model that they are using. If people want to argue with that, then that’s something to poke at